Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowAmtrak is proposing additional routes and more frequent service to central Indiana as well as a new station at Indianapolis International Airport.
The proposal, posted on Amtrak’s website, adds far more frequent routes from Chicago to Indianapolis to Cincinnati and a new connection between Indianapolis and Louisville.
With the possibility of landing billions of dollars in additional funding through the U.S. Senate’s bipartisan infrastructure bill, Amtrak has proposed a 15-year, $75 billion national plan that would bring service to 160 new communities, add 39 new routes and enhance 25 existing routes.
Amtrak said it would introduce new stations in more than half of U.S. states and improve rail service for 20 million more riders annually.
Right now, Indianapolis only has tri-weekly Amtrak service through the Cardinal Line, which runs Mondays, Thursdays and Saturdays between Chicago and Cincinnati on its way to and from New York City.
Amtrak used to offer service from Indianapolis to Chicago four days a week on the Hoosier State line, but that route ended in 2019 after the state cut off funding.
Under a proposed new Chicago-Indianapolis-Louisville/Cincinnati line, trains would make four daily round trips from Chicago to Indianapolis to Cincinnati and four other round trips daily from Chicago to Indianapolis to Louisville.
With 1.2 million people, the Louisville-Jefferson County metropolitan area is the fourth largest metro without Amtrak service. Amtrak said Louisville hasn’t had passenger rail service since 2003.
The routes through Indianapolis would continue to use the downtown station at 350 S. Illinois St. They would also stop at a new station at the airport.
In Indiana, both routes would make stops in Dyer, Rensselar, Lafayette and Crawfordsville.
The route to Cincinnati would include a stop in Connersville.
The route to Louisville adds new stations in Columbus, Jeffersonville and Louisville.
Amtrak estimates the trip from Chicago to Indianapolis would take three hours and 45 minutes. The Chicago-to-Louisville trip would last five hours and 45 minutes, and travel from Chicago from Cincinnati would take six hours and 10 minutes.
Amtrak said adding the routes to Indianapolis, Louisville and Cincinnati would provide additional train services to more than 14 million people and connect over 30 Fortune 500 companies.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Are you kidding me, 5 hrs to Louisville. Please, save our dollars, another stupid idea out of D.C.
Its Chicago to Louisville. 5 hrs is not bad.
Not a bad commute time at all from Chicago to Louisville!
The article says 5 hrs, 45 minutes Chicago-Louisville. You can drive it in 4.5, and the train trip assumes your destination is downtown, which it’s probably not.
About the same as driving…
maybe a little better.
They need to get the speed up to 100MPH service. The Chicago-Indianapolis-Louisville is the revival of the Monon.
Agreed, they should make plans to go as fast as possible. I’ve always found that the ability to read or do work on the journey is what makes travel by air (or train) far more convenient than driving.
Here is the truth. Amtrak does not control the tracks. On these routes CSX does and they will never spend the capital to upgrade the tracks so Amtrak can run faster. Also Amtrak does not have the equipment to run all these trains and Congress will not pay for it. European and Japanese rail work because they run on tracks dedicated to passenger service. Go to Chicago and just look at the mess between Amtrak, commuter rail and freight trains. Our hybrid system of private ownership of rail and quasi public ownership of equipment will never work as a viable alternative to cars and planes. We would be better served to invest in a robust bus system. If you have ever traveled on Amtrak, you know you will ride a bus eventually.
Wow, I wish I could see the future as clearly as you. To have that confidence about what will happen, what could never happen, that must be wonderful! It’s great that you can see that other nations are perfectly capable of doing what we never ever could as Americans.
Actually, Amtrak does have the equipment and it is capable of up to 120 mph speeds. Now. But, it is true that Amtrak does not own the track in the corridors noted. And, track upgrades to accommodate speeds typical in 1939 (generally passenger rail average speed has decreased since then) or at least 79 mph would be part of the project. CSX will not upgrade for freight but the program proposed would include upgrade and new track to achieve the travel times noted. Furthermore, freight carriers have not expeditiously dispatched trains nor provided priority as agreed when they were allow to jettison passenger rail at the inception of Amtrak and no congressional representation is wiling to stand up to powerful freight rail companies and their K Street lobbyists. A robust bus plan along would not work unless robust bus priority lanes would provide reliable travel times; buses would otherwise be mired in traffic. A comprehensive network of buses and trains is needed — certainly some corridor would be more appropriate for buses, others for rail, and all should be integrated to provide the most efficient network.It is false that rail and cars equate the most efficient network. The specific corridors and demand define where rail and bus are most efficient. The ownership of the mode is irrelevant to its efficiently in moving people. Amtrak is time competitive with flying and driving in the Northeast Corridor, in Souther California, Eugene to Seattle, Chicago to St Louis and Detroit, and Miami to Palm Beach and soon to Orlando. The Texas High Speed rail between Houston and Dallas will be time competitive. The North Carolina and Virginia state rail network are time competitive. Rail stations are typically downtown and yes most are not destined to downtowns, but most who fly are not destined to airports. So with each mode, terminal to destination access is another leg of the journey.
What Amtrak needs to be most competitive is a completely grade separated right of way for its routes (as is the interstate highway network) — as noted exists in Europe and Japan and China. The should be no at grade crossings with roadways.
Chicago is not a mess. Chicago is the major rail hub of the United States. Despite the volumes of freight, the eleven commuter rail lines which DO operate efficiently with agreement operating management from freight railroads. Metra Electric in fact utilizes a significantly grade separated right of way and multiple tracks that allows local and express operations. Any so called high speed rail from Indianapolis to Chicago should proceed from Union Station to Crawfordsville then into Illinois and into the former Illinois Central right of way then continue to downtown Chicago Randolph Street station
Charles N, your comment is typical American superiority complex. If you’ve been to Europe you know that mass transit is one of a number of things that they do better and more efficiently than endlessly wasteful and selfish Americans.
I travel from Indy to Chgo occasionally, but a few things used to discourage me from using Amtrak. (1) It used to take 4.5 to 5 hours when travel by car is only 3 hours – depending on time of day traffic; (2) I have to drive downtown to catch the train – that’s wasted time going in the wrong direction, plus the cost of parking – ok, so I guess I could take the red line downtown; (3) how do I get to where I’m going in Chgo once I’m downtown. I used to live there, so I know all about the bus transit, the El, etc., but all of that is a hassle and adds at least another hour – and much mire if I am going to more than one place in Chgo, which I do; (4) coordinating my travel schedule with once-a-day scheduling is a non-starter for me. The train could be free and I’d still pass.
Sounds like life is just way too complicated for you. Probably best to shelter in place.
Did you read the article?
Brent, your comment makes no sense. My point was that in my case, and I suspect most people’s, the train just isn’t workable. Maybe a long paragraph was too much for you to digest.
Christa, what leads you to believe I didn’t read the article?
You really prefer driving in Chicago to the El? I mean first of all, parking is ridiculously expensive. If you’re spending the night Downtown, you’re paying $50-70/night. You also have gridlocked traffic and aggressive drivers everywhere. I think your claim about transit taking an extra hour is wrong. With Chicago traffic, I’d suspect it may take about 15-30 minutes longer depending on where you’re going. Now if your trips to Chicago include the suburbs, I’d get wanting to drive. Otherwise, I’d much prefer to take a train if their time estimates are correct. I hate I-65 between Indy and Chicago. The trucks are extremely annoying, as is the constant traffic and construction. At least I can work, read, etc on the train.
Amtrack is a government money pit and jobs bank. Full stop. The routes mentioned are popular talking points with the unicorn and rainbow crowd(who would never actually use the train) but fall apart with the slightest bit of data. Janett and Randy lay out the reasons. It’s impossible to even guess a price for putting in a “high speed train!” From Indy to Chicago(guessing $100B as a starting point) but let’s say it happens. What if I have meetings in Schaumburg? I can drive there in 3 hours.
The route from IND to downtown sounds good until you apply pesky data. How many travelers landing in IND are going downtown, as opposed to the Burbs, home, etc? Let’s say the train runs every hour on the hour. How many travelers that arrive in the concourse at 5 after are going to wait 55 minutes for a 20 minute train ride to Union Station, when a 15 minute cab ride would drop them off at their door?
There are other people in this world, who may not have a car, or would prefer not to drive to Chicago. Maybe someone wants to fly into Chicago and take a train to Indy to see their folks, instead of making them drive to and from Chicago. Maybe someone wants to do some work on the train, instead of dealing with the stress of driving. There are a hundred different reason why people, of every demographic may want to use the train. Shortsightedness never got this country anywhere. It’s visionaries who move this country forward. The other option is to listen to dusty old, tight fisted naysayers who prefer to keep “things the way they are”.
Rachel, you conveniently overlooked the staggering price for the rainbow train. I’ve heard the “get some work done” arguments forever, but few still ride the train. Know why? Because they want to get home sooner. And yes, the “stress” of going down the highway in your $40k climate controlled vehicle with the ability to stop whenever you want and go to the door of your destination can’t compare to the stress free environment of planes, trains, airports and train stations. Complete utopia there. And you are right, I am completely overlooking the HUGE demand of “people who want to visit their folks in Indy, who fly to Chicago and take a train”. Do you even know how to get from ORD to Union Station in Chicago? It’s at least an hour for the transfer before their 5 hour train ride to Indy, but at least they can “ get some work done” on the Blue Line.
I think the train running from the airport to Downtown wouldn’t primarily be used by passengers at IND trying to get Downtown. I’m assuming they’re adding the airport stop for people wanting to fly out of IND that live in Columbus, Lafayette, or even Louisville. If I lived in Columbus, I’d much rather park at a free (presumably) Amtrak parking lot for a week long vacation than pay for parking at IND.
Boomers against a functioning gov’t are out in force on this one lol
And the red line has been such a HUGE success. Stations are always overflowing with people waiting to get on and the buses are full 24/7. Another waste of taxpayer money.
Be nice or your participation trophies might be taken away…
Rhea P.
My wife and I take the Red Line frequently from Broad Ripple to Downtown for sporting events, shows, dinner, museum visits – and the buses pick up more people at each stop along the way. Faster than driving, no parking hassles, and relaxing to boot. You ought to try it before passing judgment.
Trains were the way to go… before cars and planes.
Trains were the way to go… before cars and planes came along.
Train travel is counter active to the interstate system travel wise. Interstates make stopping in cities your choice. Trains make you stop. Basic reason why people don’t take trains except to commute
This is great news.
Maybe this will bring more jobs and work to the maintenance center in…where…Beech Grove?
This is great news. I have traveled to Chicago many times by rail and prefer it over driving. Regular round trips to Cincinnati and Louisville will entice me to go there, too.
Janett B.L. has a point: CSX and other freight carriers prioritize their freight trains. But, BY LAW, passenger trains are supposed to have priority. A little law enforcement would solve that problem.
Got a meeting in Chicago? Louisville? Cincy? Need to make revisions to your PowerPoint presentation? Update your talking points? Or just want to chill? You can do any of those things on a train. Try to do it while bobbing-and-weaving in interstate traffic. Trains make sense.
For some people some of the time. But not convenient if your destination isn’t near the train station.
Or, if the once a day schedule doesn’t meet your logistical needs.
Everyone is pointing out the obvious. This is a lifestyle choice vs a time choice. People who view train travel as appealing for various reasons may use it, but people looking to save travel time will not. I have often looked at flying vs driving to Chicago, have tried both, but now always pick driving over flying because of all the hassle and time spent flying there and then getting to your destination. Much easier to hop in a car for three hours. This should not be a build it and they will come exercise. If the customer base is not strong enough why waste the money, but if the government is giving it to you why wouldn’t you take it.
Jeff, taking the train, assuming these time estimates are accurate, is way faster than flying to Chicago. Like you, I’ve both flown and driven from Indy to Chicago. Flying makes no sense because taking the Blue Line from ORD to Downtown is an extra hour, plus there’s the security lines. If you take a cab or Uber, it’s expensive and you sit in traffic for at least 30-45 minutes during the daytime.
Public transportation is subsidized by government’s worldwide. You’re correct in that this is a lifestyle vs time choice. As you can tell from the comments here, a lot of people would like to have the option of taking the train. It really doesn’t matter if it’s profitable. I wish the government would just fully take over Amtrak vs subsidizing it so that profitability is no longer a factor.
Wesley, some of us traveled to Chicago during the era of the 55mph speed limit and pre-9/11 airport restrictions. Flying up was competitive time-wise in those days with driving if you were going anywhere generally north of Midway.
.
I agree that today is a whole different story…I usually drive any distance under 600 miles (a day’s drive) because it generally takes 8 hours max. vs. all day to fly (once you figure in driving to and from airports, security and checkin waiting, parking, car rentals, etc.).
You can currently can go Indy to Cincinnati via Amtrak: train leaves INDY around MIDNIGHT and arrives Cincinnati at 3:17AM. Similar return times in the dead of night. Not exactly convenient… And the conversation about Amtrak not controlling the tracks is right. Freight comes first; Amtrak comes next (last). Simply saying they will add service doesn’t necessarily mean it will happen and be used.
Another huge waste of our money.
Doesn’t this sound a bit like the Red Line?
Most of the people naysaying the expanded Amtrak service overlook the fact that the Interstate system was built using Billions of dollars of tax payer money and then is being maintained with Billions of dollars of tax payer money. No wonder I can jump in my car and get to Chicago faster. All of us paid to make it happen.
+1
Before we spend (waste) hundreds of millions of dollars (or billions) on further passenger rail expansion, can we all agree that the last “once in a lifetime investment” (2009 American Recovery Act which helped to fund the CA Bullet Train) has been an unmitigated disaster? Would you like to travel on the $100 billion ‘train to nowhere’ from Bakersfield to Merced? The geniuses in CA government are a joke; and we are all helping to pay for this bullet train to nowhere! Beware what you ask for from DC with the new 2022 Reconciliaton “once in a lifetime” investment”.
I wish we could hold off on this until the Hyperloop is better developed. I agree with the folks who want something but feel it’s just too long for a leisure trip and not reliable enough for business travel. Virgin Hyperloop has been able to get up to 670 MPH as it uses vacuum tubes and uses high-tech magnets for propulsion and stopping. It’s supposed to feel like a flight, but smoother with the first system happening around 2027 in Saudi Arabia where they can test it against the harshest conditions and see how well it works in an area with limited to no resources or infrastructure. There’s also a demo going on in Las Vegas, which works with existing cars and propels your car like a car wash but at 400 MPH. So, I just feel a train this slow wouldn’t make sense right now as it wouldn’t return our investment by the time it’s scrapped and replaced with something 21st Century like Maglev or Hyperloop.